Ultimately you want the court to force the party that has
grieved you to change and correct the wrong. The court if it rules in your
favour is effectively 'threatening' the other party to make it right. They're
telling someone to pay the money owed or in some cases they're telling an
entity...a business, a city government or department to change their policy or
face the wrath of the court.
How does this happen? It starts with papers delivered in the mail. That seems harmless enough, but the seal of the court attached to the document contains a threat. If you don't obey, then men with badges and guns will show up and take it to the next level. They may physically remove you from the building, restrict your movements/take away your freedom to move and/or seize items.
A lawsuit is calling upon a branch of the government to use
the threat of violence to modify or remedy a situation.
If we believe in non-resistance and refuse to use violence (as
per Romans 12) to order and manage our affairs, it follows that the courts are
not really an option for Christians. If I am to turn the other cheek and bless
those who persecute me, then I can't say that I'm following that mandate when I
call on the agents of Babylon to bear the sword for my purposes.
As I've said before Romans 13 must be understood in light of
Romans 12. We've separated them by chapter division but Paul is contrasting the
believer with the world and explaining how we are to interact with it. The
government is there, serves a Providential purpose but he's basically saying
it's 'other'... it's not part of who we are or what we are about.
The magistrates serve their purpose in a generalised sense,
but I cannot see that employing them is a viable option for Christians. I think
Paul's prohibition in 1 Corinthians 6 extends beyond the mere life of the
Church.
Ironically, Church history is riddled with attempts to
circumvent this teaching of non-violence and a host of concepts and terms have
been invented in order to do so, but they all ultimately deny the contrast Paul
is drawing. We are not to be conformed to this world. Being renewed we are able
to judge what is right and good and out of that flows a life of self-denial,
putting others first, and refusing the world's Lamech-like ethic of violence,
pride and revenge. The arguments for Office, Vocation and Just War are all
logically structured, but in fact are built on worldly values and philosophy
and if they rest on Scripture at all, they rely on faulty hermeneutics.
Practically speaking this presents a real problem for us,
especially in the American context. That is, if we are trying to participate in
the American system.
In our system the way you challenge the law is to force
judicial review. Our democracy has always frowned on the disorder associated
with public protest. The way you change the law is to work within the system.
The lawsuit forces the issue and if you're right or rather if you can get a
good and clever lawyer to make the case, (pardon my cynicism) you can get a law
changed or enforced as you desire.
This has proven disastrous as it has opened the floodgates
of litigation, and has empowered lawyers and the entire legal profession. This
has effectively empowered money... as in, those that have the most, have a
better shot in the courts.
In Europe, especially continental Europe, it's not so much
the courts as it is grass roots democracy. If you don't like the law, you take
to the streets. You demonstrate and you strike. If the discontent is widespread
enough, you can organize a general strike.
Of course as Christians this is also problematic. I'm not
sure we're to take to the streets, disrupt the civil peace, challenge the
police and certainly we're not to engage in violent or destructive behaviour.
Democracy is in general highly problematic. It's dubious on
a moral level and in terms of how it functions it can also be both delicate and
difficult.
That said, as Christians we probably have a better shot at
living in civil peace under a democratic system than some of the alternatives.
But no matter what kind of democracy... or government for
that matter, there still is the threat of violence. That's how it works. It's
one threat countering another. That's really what checks and balances are all
about.
We can be thankful for this form of government but in many
ways can't have much to do with it.
The same issues arise when we look at labour unions. We can
see why they would arise. We can understand the impulse that leads to their
formation. But remember, the threat of the strike which is the 'teeth' of the
union... is in the end a threat of violence. We will forcibly ruin your
business and physically block your profits. We will sabotage you if we don't
get our way.
This in no way alleviates the guilt on the part of many
employers who through deceit withhold rightful wages, who manipulate and take
advantage of their employees and communities and seek undue gain. Holding
people captive through implied threat can also be a form of violence.
We might say that it is good (or not) for society to have
strong labour unions, even though we probably can't be part of one. Regardless
of our answer it would seem that it's a fight that's not for us.
I contend the more we grasp the issues of society and peel
back the veneer and look at them exposed and in their essence, the words of
Paul carry great weight. There's a reason we're not to entangle ourselves in
the affairs of this life. There's a reason why being a soldier of Christ
entails 'dis-entanglement' from the world. There's a reason why we work with
our hands and lead quiet lives and pray for peace. It's not because we're
invested in the social order. We're not. It's because we have other tasks,
other business. We simply want to go about it without any unnecessary
hindrances and grief.
And I also contend that only by being outside can we
maintain our prophetic witness, integrity and clear vision.